SCOTUS ruled today that the State of Washington can deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a student based on his choice of academic discipline.

The court’s 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else.

“Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. “Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit.”

The case is a departure from recent church-state fights in which the Supreme Court has gradually allowed greater state sponsorship of religious activities. Rehnquist is usually a supporter of that idea.

This is ridiculous. It would be one thing if the state was giving a bonus to students in divinity programs or was excluding all other disciplines EXCEPT divinity. But this is entirely different. The implications of such a ruling are astounding. What if a student were studying education but planned to teach in a religious school? What about studying sociology to become a missionary? What about pursuing another discipline but doing so en route to a career in the ministry? What about students studying comparative religions with no desire to pursue the priesthood or pastorate?

My own father spent two years studying at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago before finishing his BA in Philosophy at Akron University in Ohio. He studied Philosophy en route to graduate work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary where he earned a master’s degree in theology. If he had applied for a scholarship during his time at Akron, should he have been denied because even though he was studying what the Court might deem a thoroughly secular discipline, he was doing so in pursuit of a career in full-time Christian ministry?

I really think SCOTUS is just plain wrong on this one. Scalia and Thomas dissented. Here’s some of what Scalia wrote:

“Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority … In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional … The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one’s calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial.”

We’ll see how far this reaches, especially as it applies to Bush’s work with faith-based programs and school vouchers.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has more on this with similar thoughts.